Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Técnico/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Técnico is an SPA whose sole mission at Wikipedia has been to engage in an endless campaign to change how Breitbart News is described from "far-right" to "conservative-leaning." Numerous talk page discussions consistently led to consensus against that proposal. Técnico gradually fixated the particular argument that Breitbart should be described as "conservative-leaning" because a particular New York Times article described him that way. (FWIW, other New York Times articles described Breitbart as "far right.") Ultimately, Técnico's refusal to accept the consensus led them to ANI, the result of which was a temporarily topic ban by. Técnico continued their campaign earlier this month, after the tban expired, by making the exact same argument about the exact same source, which was quickly shut down. The next thread on Talk:Breitbart News is Joeimp's first and only edit, making the exact same argument about the exact same source. "Source #92" is, you guessed it, the same NY Times source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , fair enough. Happy to answer any questions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ❌ at a first glance, but I'm going to grab a more experienced CU to look at an aspect of this. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * - Relisting for a more experienced CU. I don't recall exactly what gave me pause previously, so best to treat this as a fresh check. ~ Rob 13 Talk 04:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Quadrow/Archive.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * - The two maybe unrelated technically, but I think there's enough here to warrant a block. In addition to the evidence above, Joeimp's only edit bears some stylistic similarities to comments by Técnico (see this for instance.) Please block the new sock indefinitely. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on the technical findings and the fact that Joeimp made only one edit, I'm closing this with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)